Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Seran]

I literally gave you the exact formula to figure it out... and even gave you the answer because I knew it was well above your 3rd grade level of math.

Hi, me again. Since you're doubling down like a child over the fact your sourced bar graph not backing up your argument, so let's reverse the formula and maybe it'll help get through your dementia.

1 - (0.26 - 0.175 - 0.131 - 0.095 - 0.065 - 0.031) /= 0

Your fellow conservative friends are going to great lengths to extrapolate your faulty math, or perhaps infer missing data to make your post somehow make sense but so far they're grasping at straws. Do them a favor, just point out your bar graph isn't representative of your argument and try again.

[Suppressed Poet]

How precisely does lowering the effective tax rate to a universal flat percentage resolve the issue of income equality? If under the current tax rate a single person earning $50,000 has a tax liability of $4,118, while someone making a straight $100,000,000 would owe $37,000,000, what flat tax do you think you could charge which would end what you deem as 'discouraging people from upward mobility'?

I'll give you a hint, when you say someone making $50k owing 25% or $12.5k and someone making 100M owing 25% or $25M the only person who is enjoying upward mobility is not the person making $50k.

Income inequality is largely overrated. If you want to make everyone the same, try communism out for size and let me know how that works out for you.

A flat equal tax rate makes it so everyone shares the burden. I’m concerned with equal opportunity not equal outcome. You want to go back to where it was a 90% tax rate on the highest income? Let me give you a hint as well. Nobody works hard to have a high percentage of taxes ceased from them by the government. People react. A high marginal tax rate on high income absolutely does discourage the most successful productive people in our country. After all, in capitalism money is a reward for the value you provide to society.

[Gelston]

Ah I see. Yeah, it isn't a graph to say how much of the income taxes are paid, just the average rates of those groups.

Makes sense, it doesn't need to all equal 100.

[Seran]

Income inequality is largely overrated. If you want to make everyone the same, try communism out for size and let me know how that works out for you.

A flat equal tax rate makes it so everyone shares the burden. I’m concerned with equal opportunity not equal outcome. You want to go back to where it was a 90% tax rate on the highest income? Let me give you a hint as well. Nobody works hard to have a high percentage of taxes ceased from them by the government. People react. A high marginal tax rate on high income absolutely does discourage the most successful productive people in our country. After all, in capitalism money is a reward for the value you provide to society.

Equal burden.. wow, you actually believe that don't you? Do you actually think someone making $50k a year who spends 30-50% of their net income on survival necessities of housing, another 10-20% on food and transportation will be equally burdened with a 25% flat tax rate as someone making 100M a year who spends less than 10% on food, shelter and housing?

[Seran]

Ah I see. Yeah, it isn't a graph to say how much of the income taxes are paid, just the average rates of those groups.

Makes sense, it doesn't need to all equal 100.

Right, when you're using percentages what difference does it make when 1 = 0.76 or 0 = 0.24, I'm sure a accuracy in economic figures isn't at all relevant. 0.o

[Suppressed Poet]

Equal burden.. wow, you actually believe that don't you? Do you actually think someone making $50k a year who spends 30-50% of their net income on survival necessities of housing, another 10-20% on food and transportation will be equally burdened with a 25% flat tax rate as someone making 100M a year who spends less than 10% on food, shelter and housing?

A person making $50k a year has a way tougher time than someone making $100M any way you cut it, taxes or not. Progressive taxation is another word for wealth redistribution which is another word for stealing. Everyone should pay their fair share. It would also do a lot to unify our country because when politicians start talking about tax increases and wasteful spending programs, we would all feel that in our wallets together.

[Suppressed Poet]

Right, when you're using percentages what difference does it make when 1 = 0.76 or 0 = 0.24, I'm sure a accuracy in economic figures isn't at all relevant. 0.o

You continue to choose to live on the peak of Mount Stupid, and everyone on the PC knows it.

[Methais]

I literally gave you the exact formula to figure it out... and even gave you the answer because I knew it was well above your 3rd grade level of math.

3rd grade is being generous.

[Seran]

A person making $50k a year has a way tougher time than someone making $100M any way you cut it, taxes or not. Progressive taxation is another word for wealth redistribution which is another word for stealing. Everyone should pay their fair share. It would also do a lot to unify our country because when politicians start talking about tax increases and wasteful spending programs, we would all feel that in our wallets together.

Seems like your issue is that you have a problem with people paying taxes at all, rather than not comprehending just how inherently regressive a flat income tax would be. I understand you /think/ the wealth concentrating over the decades in the top income tax brackets is a good thing and don't comprehend that the death of the middle class is directly linked to stagnant wages and tax cuts which only favor the wealthy, but you're wrong in both instances. Case in point, look at how few first world developed nations have a flat national income tax rates versus countries with stable governments which all have progressive marginal tax rates like the United States.

[Parkbandit]

Hi, me again. Since you're doubling down like a child over the fact your sourced bar graph not backing up your argument, so let's reverse the formula and maybe it'll help get through your dementia.

1 - (0.26 - 0.175 - 0.131 - 0.095 - 0.065 - 0.031) /= 0

Your fellow conservative friends are going to great lengths to extrapolate your faulty math, or perhaps infer missing data to make your post somehow make sense but so far they're grasping at straws. Do them a favor, just point out your bar graph isn't representative of your argument and try again.

OK, let's do this the harder way for you then.

Why don't you tell me what percentage your tax bracket (the bottom 50%) pays as federal income taxes in 2020.

I've told you that it's about 3%... I've also shown you a graph that explains it... told you how to come up with the number.. and even GAVE you the number... but maybe you know better than everyone else.

So give me your number.